2) You can be a player good enough to prevent tanking, but not good enough to create a championship caliber team. Horford. Noah. Lowry. No man's land. Raptors are in no-man's land, except their roster has a lot more trade assets.
And if the Hawks or Bulls win the title this year? "They won't, though." But that's what people could've said about the Pistons in 2004, the Mavs in 2011, the Spurs last year. Surprises happen. Neither of those teams are favorites this year, no doubt. But they do have a legitimate shot. And if one does happen to win it all, then what? Then you'll revise your examples, substitute different good players who've never won? And proceed to include either Horford or Noah as one of the league's standard-setters for what kind of player it takes to win a championship?
3) If Dallas is lottery it's a "barely-miss-the-playoffs" pick in the 13-15 range. And again, those picks from other teams is completely independent of the Celtics' own record. Sure, maybe there's a 15% chance Brooklyn completely flames out and creates a top 5 lottery pick (even though they will fight like hell to avoid that because there's 0 incentive for that) but that's just wishful homerism. That's like Lakers fans this year hoping Houston would crash and burn without Dwight, but the Houston pick still ended up as a crappy first. That's what the Dallas pick is, a crappy first. Better than Rondo walking, but not good enough to hang the "future" on.
This is exactly the kind of reasoning that
bad GM's use. Exactly the reason why protections exist, because stupid execs kept thinking this way. "Our pick will be pretty good, look at our roster now, we'll never be
that bad." A single season-ending (or career-ending, at their age) injury to, say, Dirk or Deron and -- WHOOSH -- the pick is gold.
Why do you think Dallas asked for
Top 7 protection, if it's such a sure thing that the pick would be late lottery at worst? Because **** sometimes happens, especially to teams long in the tooth, short on depth, light on assets, and stuck in the brutal Western conference. Even if the chances of it being a 8-10 pick are relatively low, they do
exist. 10%, 15%, 20%...those are the odds that GM's are stuck looking for these days in any pick, because the league has gotten tightfisted with future picks, so that's all there is.
As for Brooklyn fighting like hell to make the playoffs because they don't own their pick...by that logic, no team's future pick would ever be worth much, because every team that didn't own their pick would fight like hell. Obviously, some teams just blow, anyway, and that's how other teams get top 5-10 picks that aren't their own. Injuries, old age, surprise departures, locker room turmoil, roster inflexibility, just plain old suckitude. All there, looming over Brooklyn as possibilities. Their
ceiling is a low playoff seed. A bad break here and there and all
three of those picks could be top 5. What other team's picks in the entire league that a front office wouldn't either withhold from discussions or protect up the wazoo would you rather have? They're among the most valuable other-team-owned picks in the league.
Absolutely not overrated.
The Celtics need a top 8 pick. Enough of the James Youngs, the KO, the Sullingers, the pure mediocrity that breeds more mediocrity. Again, this is a COMPLETELY independent probabilistic event than the Nets/Dallas pick, because banking on those picks to get the franchise player is like saying you only need 1 stroke to get the ball in the hole. Yes, you can get the hole-in-one, but I like the odds a lot more if you had multiple strokes. That's the entire crux of the tanker argument, increasing probability.
Given the
number of potentially-good future firsts the Celtics have, that's
exactly what the Celtics can provide either another team in a trade, or themselves if they keep the picks: Increased probability. You're offered one future 1st with a 25% chance of turning into gold, or two with a 15% chance each -- what's a better offer?
Tanking this year to get into the top 5 was essentially impossible because too many teams with worse rosters and coaches were trying the same thing. So you're talking about the difference in probability between, say, 8th and 16th, for one pick, in one year. That is
minuscule in the big picture. The average GM would be, like, what, 20% more likely to pick a franchise player at 8 versus 16? And that's 20% on top of what is already only, like, a 1-in-4 or 1-in-6 chance at best for mid-late lottery picks? You're worried about losing out on that one-off meager advantage, and dismissive of the upsides present in the Brooklyn and Dallas picks? Come on, dude.
Topic: Who are tankers mad at exactly? (Read 6711 times)